I understand and appreciate your point, but takes like brexit are nuanced. They might be overall bad, but they will always have some benefits and in my opinion journalism (especially economic journalism) should explain those benefits even if the point is to show that they are more than cancelled out by the negatives. Without this kind of reporting this is exactly how the Overton window gets moved.
I think that when it comes to topics we can vote on, saying X is bad because media says it's totally bad is not really an informed opinion.
Agreed. But I think newspapers like The Economist have argued points like "Brexit is bad" quite well and it's not very nuanced because however you slice it, it has been catastrophic for the UK unless you're a corporate lawyer who has suddenly gotten a lot of new business.
Saying something deserves nuance because 1 out of 99 experts disagrees is exactly how you end up with increasing measles cases or adding 6 more lanes to a highway.